Yep yep.....we all agree we disagree.....ain't nothing as grand as a happy conclusion <br><br> One reason why birds and horses are not unhappy is<br>because they are not trying to impress other birds and horses. <br>Dale Carnegie

Perhaps we can threaten a filibuster to prevent any action by the admins at all, add some heap of bogus amendments onto whatever decisions we make, obstruct an up or down vote, call each other some cliche talking point names ... and then blame the liberal media for this forum going to hell. Hey, it works for me.<br><br><br><br>

<blockquote>Perhaps we can threaten a filibuster to prevent any action</blockquote><br><br>It works! Don't knock it. I watched as the Republicans filibustered and blocked the voting on the Warner Iraq bill. Slicker 'n snot! Brilliant strategy. Brilliant.<br><br>They offered up an amendment which the Democrats did not allow to be voted on to be attached. Ridiculous, outlandish amendment which the Republicans KNEW Dems would not accept. So the Warner Bill got blocked.<br><br>Oh, yes, don't forget the 60 vote majority ploy they brought up too. Good one, eh? Lawful process and good tactic. Come to think of it. I almost clicked the 'post' button but had a thought. Sure we may be in the majority. But when things come up for a vote, there appears to be nothing to stop the Republicans from invoking the requirement of 60 vote majority on any bill in the future that comes up. I hope someone here will tell me they CANNOT do that legally. <br><br>What are the Republicans really heading for and what is the underlying plan? I don't have any source, and get things mixed up now and then, but I think they want the Democrats to get in a spot where they start considering withholding or mucking with funds for the war as proposed by Bush.<br><br>THAT will make the Dems look like they are taking away resources from troops in the field and thus against support for our troops! Republicans can get millions of miles out of that now and for the next election. Who is behind it? Why Bush [actually his boss Cheney] of course.<br><br>I would never have believed I would say this, but Democrats need to get down and dirty in their planning, negotiating and carrying out of plans.<br><br>John McCain. Anybody besides me recall recently reading that he is hiring all of Bush, Jr.'s former admen, consultants, presidential run aids, etc. Especially the hard-hitting, sock-it-to-em types that did the swiftboat stuff and flipflopper brilliant ploys. [Brilliant or not, they worked!]<br><br>Even this morning I read that the nice, gentle, smiling, polite, Mr. Edwards is changing the way he is going to run his political run for President. No more nice guy as he tried to do last time around.<br><br>I hate down and dirty mud slinging politics. But, I do not want another eight years of what we've just gone through!<br><br>-*-*-*-*-<br><br>Just kidding about filibustering MacMinute and/or Stan . . . . . things appear to be going along okay.<br><br><br> <br><br>

Thanks for understanding, Kate. I posted that last night in frustration on how the Rep minority continues to clusterf*ck and add on inane issues (the Gregg resolution) in order to kill the deal and cover Bush's every whim. I guess I could have started a new thread about this, but I had trouble thinking of a thread title that could out wit "Purity Balls".<br><br><br>Also, just one more item to make you scream. Warner voted against his own resolution.<br><br>

I do not think he voted against his own resolution. He stood with his party for whatever reason. I believe it was to allow debate on the Warner, Gregg resolution and another McCains. That was not really the Republicans goal though. By the way, McCain dropped his resolution/bill today.<br><br>Today they continued in discussions on CSPAN2 and Republicans kept saying the Democrats were not supporting the troops! because they would not allow the Gregg resolution that says 'we support the troops and will not withhold money'. Senator Reid told them the Warner bill says 'we support troops' in it and they do not need an amendment. I believe the Dems do not want to go on record saying not to withhold money. I do not believe they will withhold money already going for the troops, but I don't rule out future moneys being denied or withheld -- possibly -- at some date down the road.<br><br>This rumble over the nonbinding Warner bill is all subterfuge! Republicans are playing games and doing it very well, for now.<br><br>Warmer entered the discussion late in the evening and sounded a little disgusted with the name calling and putting down persons as not being supportive of troops, etc. He said he has tried never to play dirty politics with name calling etc. in his long career. He said the President said in his state of the union to offer him suggestions if you disagree. Warner said that is what he and others are doing with his bill offered.<br><br>I think there is going to be big haggling on the Prez budget next week. If it is not passed February 14, . . . . no one gets a pay check ?????? His request for the war chest billions. I can't wait to see how that goes on the Senate Floor. Republicans will make it look like Democrats are not supporting the troops if they argue in any way about money in the budget. In fact, they can stop the budget passing by putting Gregg resolution up with the budget as an amendment/rider type thing. The Dems will continue to argue against the Greg thing and it'll look like they are arguing no money for troops. Then there is the 60 majority vote thing again to bring up. Isn't it fantastic and unbelievable. This is way better than TV 24 program! Ha!<br><br>Nancy Pelosi and the House are stepping in to offer their own nonbinder! I wish I could watch both the house and senate at the same time.<br><br>Choices, choices, choices. I was glad they took a 3 hour lunch today. I wanted to take my hour bike ride.<br><br>Later,<br><br>[and why not this thread? just as interesting as anything else here and it is always at top. i don't have to look for it . . .]<br><br> <br><br><br><br>

Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.

All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.